Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge our PPI colleagues on Twitter who read and commented on our work, helping bring the importance of PPI in clinical trials to the fore. Funding There was no direct funding received for this research. The HRB CRF-C at UCC facilitated the placement of an undergraduate BSc Public Health Sciences student, CB, who led this study under supervision. The HRB Clinical Research Facility receives core funding from the Health Research Board, Ireland, and matched funding from University College Cork. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Anonymity, veracity and power in online patient feedback : A quantitative and qualitative analysis of staff responses to patient comments on the ‘Care Opinion’ platform in Scotland

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by NHS Grampian Endowments Fund (grant number 2018UA012).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The Value of Co-Production Research Project: A Rapid Critical Review of the Evidence

What are the different types of co-production within research and what are their value(s)

Real-world severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with use of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies:A population-based retrospective cohort study in Scotland

We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n=137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n=40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir.Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients

Stakeholder perspectives on contributors to delayed and inaccurate diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and their implications for digital health technologies: a UK-based qualitative study

Objective: The aim of this study is to understand stakeholder experiences of diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to support the development of technological solutions that meet current needs. Specifically, we aimed to identify challenges in the process of diagnosing CVD, to identify discrepancies between patient and clinician experiences of CVD diagnosis, and to identify the requirements of future health technology solutions intended to improve CVD diagnosis. Design: Semistructured focus groups and one-to-one interviews to generate qualitative data that were subjected to thematic analysis. Participants: UK-based individuals (N=32) with lived experience of diagnosis of CVD (n=23) and clinicians with experience in diagnosing CVD (n=9). Results: We identified four key themes related to delayed or inaccurate diagnosis of CVD: symptom interpretation, patient characteristics, patient–clinician interactions and systemic challenges. Subthemes from each are discussed in depth. Challenges related to time and communication were greatest for both stakeholder groups; however, there were differences in other areas, for example, patient experiences highlighted difficulties with the psychological aspects of diagnosis and interpreting ambiguous symptoms, while clinicians emphasised the role of individual patient differences and the lack of rapport in contributing to delays or inaccurate diagnosis. Conclusions: Our findings highlight key considerations when developing digital technologies that seek to improve the efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis of CVD

Charting a Course for Smartphones and Wearables to Transform Population Health Research

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research, given the high level of device ownership; the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices; and the frequency and duration with which data are, or could be, collected. Yet, the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade have not met this intensely promoted opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data are required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions, using illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. We then summarize the findings from 2 UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done and how such solutions can be implemented to realize the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas that must be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and possible selection bias; easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools, including how best to harmonize data items; analysis methodologies for time series data; patient and public involvement and engagement methods for optimizing recruitment, retention, and public trust; and methods for providing research participants with greater control over their data. There is also a major opportunity, provided through the linkage of digital person-generated health data to routinely collected data, to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognize that well-conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skillfully addressed in unison (eg, challenges regarding epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioral and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management, and patient and public involvement and engagement). Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow for excellence throughout the life cycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, methods, and technologies. If done right, the synergy of such a partnership has the potential to transform many millions of people’s lives for the better

Charting a course for smartphones and wearables to transform population health research

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research, given the high level of device ownership; the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices; and the frequency and duration with which data are, or could be, collected. Yet, the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade have not met this intensely promoted opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data are required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions, using illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. We then summarize the findings from 2 UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done and how such solutions can be implemented to realize the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas that must be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and possible selection bias; easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools, including how best to harmonize data items; analysis methodologies for time series data; patient and public involvement and engagement methods for optimizing recruitment, retention, and public trust; and methods for providing research participants with greater control over their data. There is also a major opportunity, provided through the linkage of digital person-generated health data to routinely collected data, to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognize that well-conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skillfully addressed in unison (eg, challenges regarding epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioral and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management, and patient and public involvement and engagement). Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow for excellence throughout the life cycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, methods, and technologies. If done right, the synergy of such a partnership has the potential to transform many millions of people’s lives for the bette

Citizen science to improve patient and public involvement in GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry (the GUIDE platform)

Background: Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry. Methods: We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Results: The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms. Conclusion: Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript.</p

Identifying key health system components associated with improved outcomes to inform the reconfiguration of services for adults with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases : a mixed methods study.

Open Access via the Elsevier agreementPeer reviewe

Real-world severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with use of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies in Scotland

We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n = 137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n = 40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir. Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients